| Literature DB >> 22815720 |
Chinmaya S Rathore1, Yogesh Dubey, Anurag Shrivastava, Prasad Pathak, Vinayak Patil.
Abstract
The Tiger (Panthera tigris) population in India has undergone a sharp decline during the last few years. Of the number of factors attributed to this decline, habitat fragmentation has been the most worrisome. Wildlife corridors have long been a subject of discussion amongst wildlife biologists and conservationists with contrasting schools of thought arguing their merits and demerits. However, it is largely believed that wildlife corridors can help minimize genetic isolation, offset fragmentation problems, improve animal dispersal, restore ecological processes and reduce man animal conflict. This study attempted to evaluate the possibilities of identifying a suitable wildlife corridor between two very important wildlife areas of central India--the Kanha National Park and the Pench National Park--with tiger as the focal species. Geographic Information System (GIS) centric Least Cost Path modeling was used to identify likely routes for movement of tigers. Habitat suitability, perennial water bodies, road density, railway tracks, human settlement density and total forest edge were considered as key variables influencing tiger movement across the Kanha-Pench landscape. Each of these variables was weighted in terms of relative importance through an expert consultation process. Using different importance scenarios, three alternate corridor routes were generated of which one was identified as the most promising for tiger dispersal. Weak links--where cover and habitat conditions are currently sub-optimal--were flagged on the corridor route. Interventions aimed at augmenting the identified corridor route have been suggested using accepted wildlife corridor design principles. The involvement of local communities through initiatives such as ecotourism has been stressed as a crucial long term strategy for conservation of the Kanha-Pench wildlife corridor. The results of the study indicate that restoration of the identified wildlife corridors between the two protected areas is technically feasible.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22815720 PMCID: PMC3398000 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039996
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Vegetation classes and description.
| Class ID | Class Name | Class Description |
| 1 | Uniform Teak forest/plantation | Mostly pure teak stands |
| 2 | Teak mixed forest | Teak and other species are found in about equal proportions. |
| 3 | Teak bamboo forest | Teak forest with bamboo under story |
| 4 | Mixed or Miscellaneous forest | Miscellaneous forest with no dominant species |
| 5 | Mixed Bamboo forest | Mixed forest with bamboo under story |
| 6 | Bamboo Mixed forest | Mixed forest but with high density of bamboo |
Variables and description.
| Variable | Model Context |
| Habitat | Assessment of suitable habitat with reference status of prey base for Tiger |
| Perennial Water bodies | Location of perennial sources of water in the corridor landscape |
| Road Density | Status of road network in the corridor landscape which may act as a movement barrier |
| Railway Track | Status of railway network in the corridor landscape which may act as a movement barrier |
| Settlement Density | Status of permanent human presence in the corridor landscape |
| Total Forest Edge | Assessment of forest fragmentation and status of covered or uncovered areas |
Habitat types and cost rank.
| S. No | Habitat Type | Cost |
| 1 | Teak | 4 |
| 2 | Miscellaneous | 3 |
| 3 | Teak Mixed | 2 |
| 4 | Bamboo Mixed | 1 |
| 5 | Mixed Bamboo | 2 |
| 6 | Non-Forest | 10 |
Distance from water bodies and cost values.
| S. No. | Type | Cost |
| 1 | 0–1 km | 0 |
| 2 | 1–2 km | 1 |
| 3 | 2–3 km | 2 |
| 4 | 3–4 km | 3 |
| 5 | 4–5 km | 4 |
| 6 | 5–6 km | 5 |
| 7 | 6–7 km | 6 |
| 8 | 7 & above | 7 |
| 9 | Actual Water Bodies | 10 |
Road density and cost rank.
| S. No | Category | Range (pcu/m) | Cost |
| 1 | High | 6 to 11 | 10 |
| 2 | Medium | 4 to 6 | 5 |
| 3 | Low | 0.1 to 4 | 2 |
| 4 | Absent | 0 | 0 |
Railway track and cost rank.
| S. No. | Category | Cost |
| 1 | Presence of railway line | 10 |
| 2 | Absence of railway line | 0 |
Human settlement cost rank.
| S. No. | Category | Range (pop/m2) | Cost |
| 1 | High | 0.0015 – 0.0022 | 10 |
| 2 | Moderate | 0.001 – 0.0015 | 6 |
| 3 | Low | 0 – 0.001 | 3 |
| 4 | Absent | 0 | 0 |
Forest edge estimate and cost rank.
| S. No. | Category (Meters) | Cost |
| 1 | 100–27,000 | 0 |
| 2 | 27,000–35,000 | 4 |
| 3 | 35,000–59,000 | 6 |
| 4 | 59,000–77,000 | 8 |
| 5 | 77,000 & above | 10 |
Figure 1Edge cost grid derived from categorization of computed edge lengths.
Weights to different model variables by experts (E1–E5).
| Weightage Assignment | ||||||
| Parameters ↓ | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | Average |
| Cover | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Food availability/Prey base | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3.4 |
| Water availability | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2.6 |
| Presence of roads | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1.2 |
| Human habitation | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Presence of railway track | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.8 |
| Slope | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.2 |
Figure 2a. Optimal tiger migration path based on run option 1 weight scheme being equal. b. Weak links along the path indicated by rectangles.
Figure 3Weak link 1 identified by Run Option 1.
Figure 4a. Cost Path identified by Run Option II. b. Cost Path identified by Run Option III. c. Weak links along path identified by Run Option III.
Figure 5a. Ari weak link showing required land parcel on the satellite image. b. Potential ecotourism spots across the corridor.